My understanding is that this will allow internet service providers to set up different pathways. If you want full access at a higher speed you will need to pay for it. There still may be free internet but the providers can censor as they wish and allow paying customers faster, higher quality. The Republicans tried to push this through awhile back but the computer geeks put up a great protest so they backed off. I guess they think now we are so worried about losing our healthcare, our taxes going up along with the deficit and The Bomb dropping on us they can sneak it through

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

The Federal Communications Commission took aim at a signature Obama-era regulation Tuesday, unveiling a plan that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers see and use.

Under the agency’s proposal, providers of high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, would be able to block websites they do not like and charge Web companies for speedier delivery of their content.

The FCC’s effort would roll back its net neutrality regulation which was passed by the agency’s Democrats in 2015 and attempted to make sure all Web content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers.

The repeal of those rules would be one of the more significant deregulatory efforts by Republicans since President Trump took office. Ajit Pai, who was nominated to head the FCC by Trump in January, has said undoing the net neutrality rules was one of his top priorities, arguing that the regulation stifled innovation and was an example of government overreach.

I don't understand it completely but I've heard net neutrality is not good. It is just another way for the government to insert itself where it is not wanted. I'm generally on the side of less govt. intrusion into our lives. I'm no expert though.

I don't understand it completely but I've heard net neutrality is not good. It is just another way for the government to insert itself where it is not wanted. I'm generally on the side of less govt. intrusion into our lives. I'm no expert though.

Yes. It's bad. Very bad. See my article for a simple explanation. Government allowing companies to both shaft the people and make money on it at the same time

Well, sober pate. Obama and the Democrats enacted the bill to protect us and make net neutrality the law of the land. Trump and the Republicans want to overturn it. I.e. get rid of laws requiring net neutrality

Well, sober pate. Obama and the Democrats enacted the bill to protect us and make net neutrality the law of the land. Trump and the Republicans want to overturn it. I.e. get rid of laws requiring net neutrality

I know I'm probably not going to change your mind, TL, but this is what the other side of the argument is. The basic argument is that free speech will be stifled as the government inserts itself more and more into internet governance. I think it is a reasonable fear.

Well, sober pate. Obama and the Democrats enacted the bill to protect us and make net neutrality the law of the land. Trump and the Republicans want to overturn it. I.e. get rid of laws requiring net neutrality

Not to P'nut B'utter it.

Before Obama's ascendancy you had no free speech>? AlGore and his creator minions of the 'tube had kontrol of your very intar-tube pre-escianse)sp(?

In the name of current administration your comments have been stricken from the record under "Net Neutrality" law.

Apogees...

While you're at it, strike this: US government [NOAA] report says that climate change is real — and humans are to blame. Conclusions of climate-change science analysis are at odds with US President Donald Trump’s policies.

While you're at it, strike this: US government [NOAA] report says that climate change is real — and humans are to blame. Conclusions of climate-change science analysis are at odds with US President Donald Trump’s policies.

It couldn't be more corruption based fraud, could it because that's how most things have been turning out lately?

I know I'm probably not going to change your mind, TL, but this is what the other side of the argument is. The basic argument is that free speech will be stifled as the government inserts itself more and more into internet governance. I think it is a reasonable fear.

... By the government enacting a law to allow companies to censor and curbing free internet? And you're buying their pretext?

Of course I am. What business was it for them to butt into radio and tv regulation to begin with? Why is more government good? That's where you and I part. I believe more government is just the opposite. It stifles freedom.

Before Obama's ascendancy you had no free speech>? AlGore and his creator minions of the 'tube had kontrol of your very intar-tube pre-escianse)sp(?

Mmm. Lucy-Liu ewe 'ave suck benefactors in kontrol of yore lief!

Obama protected net neutrality by enacting the net neutrality law because the companies wanted the ability to "tailor" the access and charge for high speed. This new law would allow the companies to censor and charge you for the pleasure of something faster than dial-up

I do believe in trust-busting and breaking up monopolies because with those situations, competition is stifled but in general I'm against intense government regulations of business unless there is substantial reason and evidence to do so.

Of course I am. What business was it for them to butt into radio and tv regulation to begin with? Why is more government good? That's where you and I part. I believe more government is just the opposite. It stifles freedom.

My dearest, darling 21. This is a government law that will cut back on internet freedom. I.e. free speech

I do believe in trust-busting and breaking up monopolies because with those situations, competition is stifled but in general I'm against intense government regulations of business unless there is substantial reason and evidence to do so.

Obama protected net neutrality by enacting the net neutrality law because the companies wanted the ability to "tailor" the access and charge for high speed. This new law would allow the companies to censor and charge you for the pleasure of something faster than dial-up

It didn't need protecting until Obama said it did. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile. What they will be doing is adding charges into your internet bill like they used to with old Ma Bell and AT&T phone bill. Internet cost will go up for the average person.

It didn't need protecting until Obama said it did. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile. What they will be doing is adding charges into your internet bill like they used to with old Ma Bell and AT&T phone bill. Internet cost will go up for the average person.